PDA

View Full Version : UPA calling members



Tom_In_Cincy
09-03-2002, 08:41 PM
I just heard from a very reliable sourse, that the UPA is calling its members asking them to not play in the US Open.

rackmup
09-03-2002, 09:51 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Tom_In_Cincy:</font><hr> I just heard from a very reliable sourse, that the UPA is calling its members asking them to not play in the US Open.<hr></blockquote>

It's a sad day in Men's Professional Pool when their "leaders" ask them to "take their ball, leave the playground and go home for milk and cookies".

It's an even sadder day when we have to refer to the UPA as a "Professional" organization and to call the players, "Professional", should they choose to be meek lambs led to the slaughter of their character and reputation by following this childish directive.

That's my opinion but what do I know? I've never been a member of the UPA, a professional pool player or a meek lamb. I am a member of SAM'S CLUB, a good player at times and a worse player during the others and that lamb story going around about me is foolish. It was a goat.

Regards,

Ken

09-04-2002, 01:55 AM
Is that legal?

Rich R.
09-04-2002, 04:36 AM
If this is true, it is very sad.
It would indicate that the UPA, a young and unproven organization, is attempting to flex their muscles and make an example of the U.S. Open and send a message to all other promoters. They want to make sure other promoters will follow all UPA guidelines when running a tournament or fear that players will not show up.
This may be a misguided effort by the UPA.
After reading all of their requirements, I have to ask myself, if I was promoting a tournament, would I want to raise large sums of money and then give total control over to the UPA. I'm not so sure. I may look for something else to promote. The UPA may be doing pool more harm than good.
I would suggest that, in light of the, first time ever, PPV coverage, the UPA should have negociated a deal with Barry B. for a partial waiver of some of the UPA requirements in exchange for a piece of the PPV action. This would insure that most players would attend the Open and both players and promoter would share any success of the PPV. The catch is that the players, to some small extent, would be sharing some of the risk, which they do not want to do.
Rich R.

Warren_Lushia
09-04-2002, 06:47 AM
another thing to consider:

suppose you are an independent promoter. you wish to have a 20,000 added plus event, which may be eligible for UPA sanctioning. let me ask, given the UPA's recent actions, do you really wanna risk going into negotiations with the UPA? then remember all the things they wanna dictate, like the format, the bank accounts, and the player payout which no one seems to be happy with? your taking an awful lot of risk for very little gain. if you don't seek UPA sanctioning you avoid all the headache and possible retribution on the UPA's behalf like you see now from the u.s. open. you don't have to worry about players boycotting or public denouncements about your event. the UPA offers absolutely ZERO guarantees from their sanctioning, none. i think barry was being awfully nice to even go into negotiations, and now he is "paying the price" of charlie's personal vendetta. how many independent promoters wanna risk that? the UPA is not a "tour" they are at present a players union. nothing necessarily wrong with that. but is anyone else not surprised barry was an easy and deliberate target? i think the whole UPA outline was specifically aimed at the u.s. open, which they hoped to strongarm into sanctioning, thereby giving them much needed credibility. way to take advantage of a bad situation.

don't forget people, barry took a loss on the last open too, because of osama and his minions. barry did the wise thing, and he divided the loss -- he refunded fans tickets (so the fans take only a partial loss) he kept the event going (so the players take only a partial loss) and he sucked up the rest himself (so he took a personal loss). he also took a personal loss at the masters event.

the behrman's have already succeeded in achieving every single one of the goals the UPA has stated on their homepage. the latest is a live pay per view of the finals of the u.s. open!! my god, it seems like a total non-issue!! barry is kicking butt, the upa is 9 steps behind. kinda hard to believe considering barry has lined many a UPA player's wallet.

bye UPA.

warren..

jjinfla
09-04-2002, 09:34 AM
When Charlie went to Barry with his DEMANDS Barry should have said, " what kind of idiot do you take me for?" and grabed CW by the neck and seat of his pants and threw him out the door. In fact, these demands that Charlie posts, and his threats of causing Barry's event to fail if he doesn't go along with them, are probably illegal and border on racketeering. The Rico Act comes to mind. Since Barry has been on a first name basis with the local State's Attorney maybe he should present these fact to him and ask his advise. Charlie probably did Earl a huge favor because if it is illegal then all of the top pros in the UPA can be named in the indictment. Also in any civil action Barry might decide to undertake after this is all over. But this final action by Charlie, where he allegedly is calling his members to boycot the open, certainly does not look good. In fact, if I was a UPA member I would hurry up and enter the US Open so that I could say that I had no part in any such action. Jake~~~this gets funnier and funnier every day. If you put it in a book nobody would believe it.

ted harris
09-04-2002, 10:44 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr>the UPA should have negociated a deal with Barry B. for a partial waiver of some of the UPA requirements in exchange for a piece of the PPV action. This would insure that most players would attend the Open and both players and promoter would share any success of the PPV.
<hr></blockquote>
Why should Barry Behrman give up anything to anyone? It is his a$$ that is on the line. And besides, the benefit to the players is the tournament; the prestige of participating and/or placing/winning in the US Open, and the largest purse in the US. All they have to do is show up and play!

Jay M
09-04-2002, 11:29 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Tom_In_Cincy:</font><hr> I just heard from a very reliable sourse, that the UPA is calling its members asking them to not play in the US Open. <hr></blockquote>

I can verify for an absolute fact that this is untrue. I AM a UPA Touring Pro and yes, they called me. The conversation was basically-- How do you feel about the actions taken by the UPA in conjunction with the US Open. It was pretty much just putting out a feeler among the membership to touch base.

Not once was it even asked whether I was going or not, nor was I asked not to play. You may want to re-check your source and the information they gave you.

Jay M

Rich R.
09-04-2002, 12:04 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: ted harris:</font><hr> Why should Barry Behrman give up anything to anyone? It is his a$$ that is on the line. And besides, the benefit to the players is the tournament; the prestige of participating and/or placing/winning in the US Open, and the largest purse in the US. All they have to do is show up and play! <hr></blockquote>
For the most part, I agree with you Ted. I was simply suggesting a possible alternative to the current situation, in which players are not attending the Open. If the top players to not play, the tournament will lose much of it's prestige.
For whatever reason, or choice, Barry and the UPA have not come to terms. It could possibly be over the money that is suppose to be posted. I don't think any of us know if that is the only issue.
Instead of a pi$$ing contest, I would just like to see a little cooperation from both sides for the sake of the game. With the PPV, there is a chance to really take a step forward and possibly attract future sponsors. Between the financial dealings and players boycotting, you are not going to attract anything but flies to the corpse of the UPA and possibly the U.S. Open. It just seems that neither side, especially the UPA, wants to enter into a real negotiation.
Rich R.

jjinfla
09-04-2002, 12:52 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Jay M:</font><hr> I can verify for an absolute fact that this is untrue. I AM a UPA Touring Pro and yes, they called me. The conversation was basically-- How do you feel about the actions taken by the UPA in conjunction with the US Open. It was pretty much just putting out a feeler among the membership to touch base.Not once was it even asked whether I was going or not, nor was I asked not to play. You may want to re-check your source and the information they gave you.
Jay M <hr></blockquote>

Jay, not to offend you, but the conversation may have been different with the top 20 in the UPA. There is a big difference in whether the top 20 threaten to skip an event or the rest of the members in the UPA skip it. One thing we do know for a fact. The phone calls were made. But if it was as you say then I would expect a responsible organization would have sent out a letter to each member which could have been answered anonymously and not ask each member different questions via the phone where the member might feel intiminated to give the answer that the caller is looking for. The very act gives the appearance of impropriety. Jake~~~are you going to the Open this year Jay?

AzHousePro
09-04-2002, 01:09 PM
The sad thing is that both sides are doing what they feel is good for the game. Barry is finally seeing his struggle for TV time rewarded and the UPA is trying to protect their players the best way they know how.

It would be nice if both sides would remember that they are ultimately trying to do the same thing. They are trying to help the game. Think about where the US Open would be if they both decided to work with each other.

It could be a full field of 256 of the top players in the world with UPA logos all over on PPV.

The US Open, if handled correctly, could be the showcase on PPV that the UPA needs to really gain credibility.

If Barry would realize that he might not need the UPA, but it sure wouldn't hurt to have them there. And if the UPA would realize how important this event could be to them. And if they both realized it is best for the game itself for them to cooperate. Just think of what we could have.

Mike

TomBrooklyn
09-04-2002, 02:00 PM
How many UPA members are there? How many are touring pros?

ted harris
09-04-2002, 02:17 PM
The voice of reason.

Jay M
09-04-2002, 02:36 PM
Jake, I've attempted to answer your questions below. One thing I'd like to say really quickly first though. I've met you and you've met me. I think you are a nice guy the few times we've talked, but you have jumped on an anti-UPA kick ever since the Central Florida Open. While you may have a grudge against Charlie for whatever reason, I think it was the non-autographing policies that started it, if you will take a moment and look at this objectively, your opinions and views will be taken more seriously. Baseless speculation hurts all of us, not just the UPA as an organization.


<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: jjinfla:</font><hr>
Jay, not to offend you, but the conversation may have been different with the top 20 in the UPA. There is a big difference in whether the top 20 threaten to skip an event or the rest of the members in the UPA skip it.
<hr></blockquote>

Do you truly believe that the players don't talk among themselves? I've spoken with any number of the "top 20" and the ones I've spoken with all had experiences similar to mine.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: jjinfla:</font><hr>
One thing we do know for a fact. The phone calls were made. But if it was as you say then I would expect a responsible organization would have sent out a letter to each member which could have been answered anonymously and not ask each member different questions via the phone where the member might feel intiminated to give the answer that the caller is looking for.
<hr></blockquote>

The questions asked were extremely open-ended and were more closely related to fact-finding and getting a feel for the general concensus than they were about trying to sway anyone's opinion on the situation or lead someone to not play in the US Open. They were very nearly the type of questions you would find in a survey.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: jjinfla:</font><hr>
The very act gives the appearance of impropriety.
<hr></blockquote>

I disagree, I think that it is quite possibly one of the most professional parts of this whole situation. The only way to get better is to get feedback and to work to improve. Asking the general feelings of the players is one way to get feedback and spoken communication is better than written, especially when the written word can be misinterpreted to mean nearly anything you want it to.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: jjinfla:</font><hr>
Jake~~~are you going to the Open this year Jay? <hr></blockquote>

Actually, I am in the middle of a big project for my "day job" and unless that is wrapped up in time, the answer is no. I would truly like to go, however, making a living has to come first.

Jay M

Note that my views are just that, mine, not the UPA's.

Jay M
09-04-2002, 02:43 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: TomBrooklyn:</font><hr> How many UPA members are there? How many are touring pros?
<hr></blockquote>

I don't have the actual numbers, but most of them are listed on the web site at http://www.upatour.com

Click where it says "Main Menu" and choose "UPA Players List" and you can get a list of most of the names. They had some names, including mine, listed on the front page of the site (as a welcome from back in June) but those have been removed and the site is apparently being updated.

If I had to guess, I'd say there are roughly 100-125 touring pros and about the same in semi-pro and amateur making between 300-375 members total, but as I said, that's just a guess.

Jay M

09-04-2002, 05:39 PM
It figures. Charlie was a stuck up snot way before he ever amounted to anything in pool. NOW...this idiot is in a position of power? God help us.
I think the only reason that Charlie started the UPA was so that he could get a free ride out of pool. Make a living and not have to play well.....all masked behind the UPA and attempting to do something for pool.
What was it i read at the UPA site???....for every X amount of dollars added...Someone keeps X percent of the entry fee....and as the added prize money goes up due to sponsorship...so does the percentace of the entry fee that is kept?????

Where does this money go to? Who's profiting from this?

I wonder?

Maybe Charlie is pissed off because the more money put up, the more of the entry fee he can take? And if Barry ISN'T putting the money up to Charlie's liking...maybe it's less money in CHARLIE'S pocket.
Don't know if that's the case, but it's worth looking in to.
Seeing as he's starting to look like every other promoter who robbed the sport for personal gain.

TomBrooklyn
09-04-2002, 06:07 PM
What promoter robbed the sport for personal gain? Isn't a promoter suppossed to reap gains from his promotions? =TB=

09-04-2002, 06:12 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Anonymous:</font><hr> It figures. Charlie was a stuck up snot way before he ever amounted to anything in pool. NOW...this idiot is in a position of power? God help us.
I think the only reason that Charlie started the UPA was so that he could get a free ride out of pool. Make a living and not have to play well.....all masked behind the UPA and attempting to do something for pool.
<hr></blockquote>

Umm, since when does Charlie not play well? It would seem to me that his living is coming from sponsorships and prize purses, NOT the UPA. Anyone who has ever tried to start a tour will tell you they starved their first year or two. He's probably putting in rather than taking out at this point. Don't get me wrong, I think Charlie committed a tremendous Faux Pas here, but your accusations are just baseless and catty, IMO

Ken
09-04-2002, 06:23 PM
Read it again. The more money that is added the less of the entry fees has to go into the payout. The promoter can keep it. This spread of misinformation is getting sickening.
KenCT

09-04-2002, 07:25 PM
=TB=

Ever hear of a convicted felon (manslaughter-- he actually kicked a man to death) named DON KING?

09-04-2002, 07:26 PM
So you are still going to play in the US Open... right?

Jay M
09-04-2002, 08:23 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Anonymous:</font><hr> So you are still going to play in the US Open... right?

<hr></blockquote>

No, as I said earlier, my regular paycheck has to come first, but that decision has NOTHING to do with the UPA and was made long before any of this started.

Jay M

rackmup
09-04-2002, 10:06 PM
I believe the problem is two-fold:

One half is suffering from a tarnished reputation and the other half seems to be too busy trying to flex it's infantile muscles.

Meeting somewhere in the center of the ring, shaking hands and doing what is right should be the course of action rather than biting off an ear or hitting below the belt.

Regards,

Ken

ted harris
09-04-2002, 11:47 PM
Slow down a little Hoss! Don't you think you are taking it a little too far?

Rich R.
09-05-2002, 04:48 AM
Mike, you put thoughts into words, much better than I can. Thank you.
Rich R.~~~cooperation is the key.

Doctor_D
09-05-2002, 05:01 AM
Good morning:

Sounds like both side would benefit from the use of an independent Third (3rd) party arbitrator!

Dr. D.